Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

karlnyberg writes "Adding a third voice to the conflict between Tesla's Elon Musk and New York Times Reporter John Broder, CNN/Money's Peter Valdes-Dapena drove from DC to Boston (primarily to test the SuperCharger network). As he says in the article: In the end, I made it — and it wasn't that hard. ... As for the Supercharger network? Turns out that works, too.' He expands on this a bit: 'Looking back on the trip, it would be even easier if Tesla would install one of their fast-charging Superchargers along the New Jersey Turnpike. (These charging stations can fill up a nearly dead battery in Tesla's longest-range cars in about an hour, which is enough time to stop for a meal.) Tesla's working on that, spokeswoman Shanna Hendricks said. But the first priority was to install enough to make this trip, even if you had to take it easy most of the way. But I didn't have to take it that easy, which is good because the Model S provides a pretty amazing mix of smooth and silent performance along with brain-squishing acceleration. So even if you're not driving from Washington to Boston, it's an impressive car, all on its own.'"

On one side you have John Broder who it seems like wants to see this tech fail for some reason or the other (This is just my personal opinion from reading his prior articles). That is the kind of mindset he was in before he even started test driving this. On the other side you have Elon Musk who wants to sell people this new tech which will obviously have some issues in the beginning (which Musk would rather not talk about instead and blame everyone else for it.) .
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.
However, Musk's blog post was so convincing I almost find myself not rooting for John Broder at all!

John Broder would have still had a great article if he just plainly said what he did to kill the battery. I think it is totally within the bounds of a "test drive" to punish the vehicle's limits. Especially, the range since that is the biggest talking point with the electric car technology and the Tesla Supercharger network.

I would have driven like a road-racer on every leg. Carry my AAA card for free towing and make sure I understood how to ready the car for towing. Driving around a parking lot is so boring. A better story is how Bandit escaped Smokey in an Tesla S. Hid on a side road and waited for the Snowman to tow him back to the Supercharger station.

Providing all of the facts about the trip and how well or poorly it held up to Telsa's claims.

The problem with Broder's article, if what Musk says is correct, is that he intentionally behaved like a loon while charging it. He charged it up to a 32-mile range when he knew he had to go 61 miles. Who on earth would do something like that? There's punishing the vehicle, and then there's trying to sabotage the vehicle's chances.

I'd say that.6 miles is quite a bit, in a parking lot. Try it yourself. Go to your local mall, and drive around among the parked cars and pedestrians..6 mile can be more nerve wracking than 600 highway miles.

As far as possible. It's highly unlikely that weather alone would account for the massive differential between what CNN got and what Broder got. Read the CNN's article and compare their numbers to Broder's. You'd have to probably warm stuff up to tropical levels on the same route to get the discrepancy meaningful enough to account for Broder's account.

Broder had two main complaints. The first one was 'loosing' range during the cold night. The range lost there is what caused the problems for him, it all went downhill from there. CNN didn't park the car overnight and drove it in slightly better weather. Batteries tend to respond pretty badly to low temperatures so this might well be enough of a difference to explain the different outcome. His second problem seems to be bad advise from Tesla. Tesla wouldn't be making the same mistakes during a follow up tes

Actually Broder's problem was that he embarked on a 61 mile leg, with the computer showing a range of only 32 miles. This definitively proves that he had the intention to "fail" the Model S. It doesn't matter if it was the president telling me to set off, I would not drive a car 61 miles with the range indicator saying 32 miles unless I wanted a ride on a tow truck.

You need to take into account Broder's and Tesla's history if you're going to try to judge that without evidence. Broder has a long-standing animus towards electric vehicles. Tesla does not, so far as I can tell, have a history of wildly inflated claims about what their cars can do.

As an EV builder, i can assure you, the weather really doesn't effect it. In the brutal, -10F weather, i only see a 10% drop in range...with lead acid batteries. 3% with LiFePO4. The simple fact is that the first article was a complete fabrication designed to hurt the image of the electric car.

Just out of curiosity (and because I'm too lazy to google it, AND you're an EV builder), how exactly does the heat in an EV like a Tesla or Fisker work? I know it at least has to be supplemented by some type of resistive electric heating element, but is there also a method for circulating waste heat from the batteries and motor(s) to the cabin area to provide heat as well? Does this waste heat provide a usable amount of heat for say a Northern US winter climate?

I'm just wondering, because I know resistive electric heat has to suck a lot of amps. Depending on whether you just bundle up and tough it out with no resistive heat, vs cranking the heat like you would in an ICE-powered vehicle probably has a very considerable effect on range.

IANA EE or automotive engineer, but I would probably use a heat pump rather than resistive heating. A heat pump has two purposes, air conditioning and heating. As a heater it is more than efficient, it can provide 300 or 400 watts of heat for 100 watts of power [wikipedia.org]. (Efficiency is not the correct term - 'transfer' is better - 'coefficient of performance'). The only disadvantage would be that heat pumps are noisy compared to a resistive heater, but that's not that big a deal in a car. And, of course, it can be used as an air conditioner in the summer - but then it uses a lot of power.

IANA EE, automotive or HVAC engineer either, however I do have a heat pump that heats and cools my home. Heat pumps work great for stationary applications, but you need a relatively large evaporator coil to generate any significant amount of heat. Compare a regular residential A/C unit to the equivalent tonnage heat pump and you'll see that the unit is almost twice the size. Automotive A/C condenser coils already take up all of the surface area they can get in the front of the vehicle's radiator. Also keep in mind that heat air-to-air pumps also require defrost cycles to clear the evaporator coil of frost accumulation, this requires an auxiliary heating method as well, unless you don't mind ice cold air being blasted at you during each defrost cycle. Place the evap coil on the front of a moving vehicle with precipitation constantly blasted at it and these defrost cycles will be even more frequent.

In theory, a heatpump would be great, but you need to solve a few problems with the conventional heat pump application first to make it practical. I really think it would just be easier to have propane catalyst heat that used those canisters that camping applications use. VW used to offer something similar for their air-cooled vehicles that burned gasoline called the ebersparcher [google.com]

And, of course, it can be used as an air conditioner in the summer - but then it uses a lot of power.

Actually, using them in heating mode typically uses more power. The bigger the differential between ambient temperature and the desired conditioned temperature, the more energy is required. Going from 90 to 70 is only 20 degrees difference. Going from 0 degrees to 70 is 70 degrees difference, so the heating mode uses a lot more energy. It is still always going to be better than a resistive heating element, but the bigger the temp differential, the closer the two options get in terms of "efficiency".

It was colder on Broder's trip. The lowest being -1. The batteries are certified for -10. Meaning, down to -10, there will not be a significant difference. Broder was also told to plug the vehicle in at night during extremely cold weather which allows the battery packs to be heated. This in turn would have also provided additional charge. Broder elected not to. That's four charging opportunities he purposely avoided. Additionally, if you look at the data, you can see where Broder claims he was on cruise control at a slower speed yet the data clearly shows him constantly accelerating and decelerating at a much higher average speed, whereby at time's he hitting about 60% faster than he actually claims. In case its not clear, if you want to destroy fuel economy, constantly accelerate and decelerate.

Basically if one had an objective to sabotage a product and then write about the failure specifically created by sabotage, you would do exactly as Broder did.

That's actually the weird thing; if you look at the graphs Tesla have released, it appears he did only lose about 5% of charge overnight, but for some reason this caused the available range - again from their graphs, not relying on anything Broder said - to plummet from a safe 90 miles to an oh-fuck-can't-reach-the-Supercharger 20 miles.

This has been discussed ad nauseum but apparently you missed all of the memos.

The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns. It's a problem with how the current charge status is read by the electronics, NOT electrons bleeding away through the tires.

So, no violation of conservation of energy. Turns out chemical reactions happen slower in the cold, and we've known this for hundreds of years. Warm 'em up, and you are back to where you were.

The battery READS differently when cold. But as it gets used, it returns to operating temperature (just like an internal combustion engine) and that charge - magically! (not really) - returns.

That's what Tesla staff supposedly told Broder was going to happen when he set of, and yet this thread and every other thread are full of people blaming Broder for setting off when he "knew" - based on the range reported by the car - that he could never possibly have made it and arguing that the only reason for him to do so was because he wanted to run out of power. Oddly enough no-one's accused them of spreading FUD or modded them down to -1, Troll...

It's almost like Slashdotters is trying to rationalize this any way they can, regardless of whether the arguments are even vaguely logically consistent.

There may have been some faults on Musk's end, but it does seem Broder was caught in multiple lies about the journey. I'm not sure I buy Broder's reason for the stopping and starting in a parking lot for five minutes was him attempting to find a charging station, unless he can not turn his head side to side.

Have you driven on I-95 in the dark much? Broder's statement about trying to find the charging station seems pretty reasonable from my experience in those giant rest stops.

In general, the first thing that happens is that the ramp splits to separate traffic between parking trucks, parking cars, and gas station traffic. Does these signs say where the charging station is? Is it a sign that you will miss if you glance in your rearview mirror to see if there is an 18-wheeler coming zooming up behind you as you pause to look at signs?

How can you be sure Broder is lying if you haven't been there in the dark yourself? There is no GPS recorder data and there is no camera footage.

The speeds? Is that the "lie"? Teslas have 21" wheels normally. He was driving on 19" snow tires. If the system logging his speed wasn't calibrated for the wheel difference you'd see the logs indicate speeds about 10% higher than Broder was actually traveling. There's your discrepancy between the two.

You are only partially correct here and not where it is important. It's not the size of the wheel itself that matters, it's the overall size of the tire. A 21" tire (on this type of car) is going to have a significantly shorter sidewall than a 19" snow tire will. As such the overall size won't have changed that significantly and you are looking at far less than a 10% difference.

Additionally what they were reporting in those graphs was the information in the ECU which would be the same information given to the speedometer on the dash since that is where the dash gets it's information. So while the car may have said he was doing one speed and he was actually doing another based on tire size, what he thought he was doing was no different than what the ECU thought he was doing. The only way he could think he was doing a different speed than the car thought was if he was using another device (e.g. GPS) to track it and in that case most of any discrepancy is going to be due to the built-in overrating of the ECU/speedo (due to various laws and penalties around the world) which is typically in the 5-10% range.

I don't know when the various laws took effect, but I know it's "broken" for cars at least since 1998 (first car I had cause to check the calibration and learned about all this) to be accurate with wheels and tires within OEM specs. It's a big deal in many places (Europe is where I'm the most familiar since I have a penchant for German cars apparently...) as the car MFG can face some pretty serious fines and penalties should it be found that one of their cars underreports the speed. Because of this they add the 5-10% buffer so that almost no matter what you do (e.g. short of 35" mud tires on a Smart) with a wheel/tire combination it won't underreport.

. ..
The speeds? Is that the "lie"? Teslas have 21" wheels normally. He was driving on 19" snow tires. If the system logging his speed wasn't calibrated for the wheel difference you'd see the logs indicate speeds about 10% higher than Broder was actually traveling. There's your discrepancy between the two.. ..

Uhhh, I don't usually drive the car on the wheels. I put tires on those wheels. Snow tires usually have more sidewall on them...
Stock available tire wheel combos for a Tesla S: 245/45R19 or optional 245/35R21. Difference in size is.1" (27.7" - 27.8") which works out to 0.3%.

"Teslas have 21" wheels normally. He was driving on 19" snow tires. If the system logging his speed wasn't calibrated for the wheel difference you'd see the logs indicate speeds about 10% higher than Broder was actually traveling. "

Logic fail? Why are you assuming 2 separate systems for measuring speed? I suppose they could have used GPS for their logs, but it didn't say that anywhere. Most likely the cars speedometer and the speed on the logs came from the same source. Any error due to tire size would have affected both equally.

At what point do facts somehow become less convincing than John Broder's fabrication? Facts should be cut and dry, end of the day. If John is on one "side" and Musk is somehow on another, then you are simply misrepresenting "sides" to the story that don't exist. The opposite of facts is not another side to a story, it's called bullshit, and appropriately so. NYT doesn't get an all clear to do that any more than Faux news.

To be fair, the "NYT" didn't lie - Broder did. The NYT backed up one of their journalists. Which they should! You don't throw your soldiers out into the enemies tender mercies, just 'cause. But if Broder lied - or was confused - then he has lost their protection, one would think. Let's see how this plays out. Reportorial lying is not well received at any paper.

This reflects directly on the NYT, and if they don't hold their own journalists accountable for doing a bad job then it reflects directly on the NYT. Then again, this isn't the first time they've done a horrible job.

You do hold your own accountable, else your quality control becomes nonexistent. That is indeed why quality control aka editors are supposed to exist.

More than 90% of the American Public should own an electric car. Charge it every night like a cell phone. Drive a gasser on the long trips, and save huge amounts of money and the environment the other days. The only issue with Tesla is the absurd price. And if you were worthy to ride in a Tesla, you would take that "gutless" comment back. My homebuilt EV will embarrass a 2014 Shelby GT500 in the 1/4 mile. My 204ft/lbs isn't a lot of torque in a gas car. But when your power band is 0-10000rpm, no gear shifting, it makes for one fast car.

I don't want one and therefore nobody should want one. Not only that, but the company is evil for even offering them. Hell, the inventors should be put in jail for even thinking about them. And also, f you.

Well, there are a number of layers to this, and it can be useful to unpack them. In a way the OP has a point, both have a known bais and preformed a similar test with drastically different results. Once all the data is looked at, of course it is possible one of them is, as you say, completely full of shit.. it is also possible they both are a bit off, and a whole range in between. However the final outcome does not negate initial bais, and looking over their respective reviews and results should be done

I'm also more likely to trust someone whose bias is out in the open as opposed to someone whose bias isn't. Musk has an obvious interest in selling his cars but made no effort to hide that. Broder on the other hand didn't say "I'm an oil shill and have X interest in trashing electric cars."

A "he-said-she-said pissing contest"? If he hadn't fought back, it would now be common understanding that the Tesla was a piece of shit that died on a NYT reporter. It's STILL common understanding that somehow a Tesla failed on Top Gear. Perception is absolutely reality. He had to hit back brutally and immediately, or Tesla would have been Apteraed.

Journalism is journalism, it's a form of entertainment and the major problem with it is that it's our only source of what's happening outside in the world unless we know people involved in those events that we trust (which we don't. And if we did, well, that'd be just one person too.)

My epiphany about journalism came in the infamous Observer piece accusing Demon Internet (a major UK ISP) of selling child porn because it had an NNTP server, and anon.penet.fi - an anonymous emailer system that was used by groups like Amnesty International - of being a conduit for child porn even though that was almost a technical impossibility. The Observer was, at the time, one of Britain's most respected newspapers, largely independent, fearless, and frequently willing to speak truth to power. There were minor issues during a recently previous period in which it was owned by a gold mining company, but it wasn't owned by them any more, and even during that period it had a nearly unblemished reputation for truth.

The Observer just made shit up, used a very obvious piece of sophistry to justify it, and put it on the front page. And never apologized.

Why? Because they could. Scandals sell papers, and if you can take some snapshot of the world and create a tortured argument that it was scandalous, you can invent a scandal.

And so we get to Broder, who may or may not be as guilty as Musk says, but, even discounting 90% of what Musk claims, operated his Tesla in a way no Tesla owner would have done in the real world in a deliberate attempt to get the failure he wanted.

Why? Because he could. Scandals sell papers, and if you can take some snapshot of the world and create a tortured argument that it was scandalous, you can invent a scandal.

If journalism is now just "a form of entertainment" then as a democracy where people are trying to make decent decisions about their government and what corporations they interact with we're in DEEP SHIT.

Ed Murrow may have done. There are countless journalists out there who believe they're making the world a better place, using their craft to inform and explain, but they all know the difference between a good story and an important story, and the really, really, good journalists try to make important stories into good stories. Nobody would have read John Pilger's 1970s expose of Pol Pot's Cambodia (which scandalized Britain) if he didn't know how to keep the reader on the edge of his or her seat.

It's more obvious that movies are a form of entertainment. They're 99% fiction, and a good movie (off topic note: Die Hard 5 is fucking awful. Just warning you. My wife and I saw it last night, attrocious. Gigli is a better movie.) is rarely an important movie (by which I mean a movie that tries to convey an important message.)

Steven Spielberg knows that. And when you saw ET as a kid, you were entertained. But you were also entertained when you watched Schindler's List (assuming you weren't making out in the back row); Spielberg is a good director, and like a good journalist, he knows the difference between a good story and an important story, but can make an important story into a good movie.

Recognize journalism for what it is. Journalism is about entertainment first. On occasion, if you're lucky, this will co-incide with getting better informed.

However, Musk's blog post was so convincing I almost find myself not rooting for John Broder at all!

You mean like Elon Musk claiming that Broder was lying because he didn't turn the heater down at the 182 mile mark (Which he never said he did), despite some miles later... SHOCK, A 10 degree drop in cabin temperature!

Or how he 'was trying to kill the battery' because he drove around a building looking for the charging station? And charged it? And not, you know, letting it die?

Or how about his claim that only a moron would leave on a 60 mile trip when the indicator said he could go 30, because he listen

As a journalist, we have high expectations that Mr. Broder would reports impartial facts. Since he wrote it in the New York Times, we have expectations about the journalistic integrity of the writer and the facts within the article. The article at best, is misleading and plays loose with the facts. At worst, it is a hatchet job just on the side of possibly escaping legal culpability.

First of all, he has to decide what he was trying to accomplish. He if is trying to test Tesla's supercharger network and that is the primary motivation, then Mr. Broder exceeded the test parameters. It is not that hard to successfully travel where he went using only the superchargers. However, if he wants to exceed the test parameters, then by all means he could have chosen to plug in at any number of other EV charging locations, had chosen to charge fully, or chosen to plug in overnight. The closest analogy I can think of is if a journalist is trying to verify mileage claims of say, a Prius. The mileage claim is provided given certain test parameters. If you drive too fast, you won't get that mileage. If it is too cold or too hot, it won't get the same mileage. So if you want to see if you can get that mileage, restrict yourself to only fueling near the limits of that resulting range, and then drive fast *and* choose to not fuel all the way up, then yeah, you didn't get the mileage. Whose fault is that?

Mr. Broder on several occasions noted temperatures and speeds that were not indicative of what he actually experienced throughout the drive. His writing clearly exaggerates the situation, most of which is his own doing. Further, it's nearly impossible to not see the ability to charge further. As a long time energy reporter for the New York Times, can we reasonably expect that he is this incompetent? Mr. Broder didn't need to be so loose with the facts, since the current generation of BEVs are not really ready for most people. They do need to be plugged in. They are fantastic for those that can afford it as a daily driver, mostly commuting and 2 hour round trips. Cost of ownership has dropped to roughly equivalent of gasoline power cars (battery replacement costs gas costs, probably less repair needed for BEV vs. gasoline car over time). But for road-tripping where multiple back to back full energy transfers are necessary, it isn't as convenient as a gasoline car at the moment. Mr. Broder, as a journalist writing a piece that is expected to accurately portray the facts, could have pointed this out while sticking to the facts and competently operating/handling the vehicle and he failed to do so.

To me, 270 mile range sounds fantastic (my car only gets 210 miles to a tank). I know charging points aren't yet as ubiquitous as fuel stations and that's the point of these tests, but seriously 270 mile range is more than enough for most people to do 95% of their regular driving without even considering range.

If it takes an hour to fully charge I could see roadside cafes, movie theatres, etc. lining up to get them. (Not meant to be cynical: if you have people who need an hour to kill and a business that lets them kill that hour they really need to get together. It'd be quite a cultural change to routinely stop in for lunch at a particular place because you can charge you car there, of course.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that happening in the next 20-40 years, unless your only destination is an official quick charge station.

Look at you average parking lot/garage. What do you see? Lots of spaces, and very little wired cabling.

The problem is, these parking lots would have to be dug-up and completely resurfaced to run cables to each parking spot (can't just wire-up a few spots and "reserve" them for EVs, no way people will obey that). Or you cou

I drive an average of 200 miles a week including commuting, errands, visiting family, etc. Every other month, I go to visit my parents about 150 miles away and do some light driving while I'm there. I might make a trip greater than 250 miles in a single stretch perhaps once every other year and in most cases, won't even cover that in a week. It sounds like a good fit for me - especially in a two-car home so if we need to go somewhere without charging stations, we can just take the other car.

"270 mile range sounds fantastic (my car only gets 210 miles to a tank)."
You should get a better car. I drive a VW TDI, and on a half tank (somewhere between 12 and 13 gallons) I can do at least 200 miles -- and I do not exactly drive in a way that maximizes fuel efficiency. Diesel cars sound a bit different and smell a bit odd after short trips, but even with higher-priced fuel you are going to see a cost advantage to diesel (maintenance is a bit pricier too, but even factoring that in you'll have a co

Exactly. CNN did not truly replicate the test that the NYTimes did, they just did their own test that was somewhat similar. There are a lot more variables at play here than distance driven. No overnight stop without it plugged in. The temperature while driving was significantly higher for the CNN test.

You're aware it's a vehicle, right? Installing insulation and a completely new cooling system occupies space, consumes power, adds weight, and costs extra money in both production and maintenance costs.

The thing about these Tesla journey's is that they read like an newspaper column about automobile touring from 1902:

AUTOMOBILES IN BOSTON; Sixty-nine Machines Complete First Half of the Journey.

BOSTON, Oct. 11, 1902. -- The first half of the 500-mile reliability contest of the Automobile Club of America from New York to Boston ended at 5:15 to-night in a drenching rain, when Kenneth A. Skinner, in a De Dion-Bouton car, arrived at the finishing point.

Of the 75 machines which left New York Thursday morning 69 finished. The roads from New York to Springfield were excellent, but from Springfield to Boston they were poor and muddy, and the tourists were well splattered with mud when they arrive.

The severest test was Foster's Hill, a severe 12 per cent climb. Several machines went into the side ditches in an effort to clear some that were stalled. In many instances it was necessary for the riders to get out and push the cars up the incline.

The point is it will be cheaper at some point soon if enough people get interested in it and invest in it. What will decide the future is articles like Broder's or others who take the time to review it and are expected to give an honest opinion on it.

While you were busy working, the masses have learned that credit is cheap and so they're buying $50,000 cars now. I am not objecting to your point, because it's a good one, but am pointing out that for many people this is no longer a (mental) barrier to purchase.

...or, y'know, save some of that $20k for retirement or paying off existing student/mortgage debt. There's nothing wrong with giving to charity, but paying down debt or saving for retirement now means you'll have a whole lot more to give down the road.

Buy a used $5000 car, don't spend the rest, and be able to go through retirement while being able to give.

I don't understand why everyone is so gaga over these Tesla's. Is it a beautiful car? Yeah. Is it well made? Yeah. But, the base price remains at $57,400. This is not a car for the masses. It's like writing about an all-electric Mercedes. Who cares?

As I understand it Tesla's buisness plan is to first make a high performance sports car (Roadster) to work out the bugs in the technology, then make a cheaper sedan to scale up production of components as the more components that are made the cheaper they get. Once enough production capacity is built they can then make cheaper cars using what will then be off the shelf components.

It's the chicken and the egg problem - if nobody mass produces electric cars they will never get cheap, so by mass producing lots of expensive high performance cars they build up the infrastructure to support making cheap ones.

Everyone is going gaga over Tesla because they are succeeding, and with each car they sell we get that much closer to having a cheap yet powerful electric car.

And frankly, at least for me, there's an element of rooting for the underdog here. Tesla is doing what the big dogs said couldn't be done, and shouldn't be done, and they're doing it way better than what the big guys are doing. I haven't crunched any numbers, but I'll bet Tesla have accomplished way more (in terms of advancing the technology) with their time and $$ investments in the roadster and sedan than say GM has with the volt or Nissan with the leaf, despite those mega-corps having much more experience building cars.

No, $60k isn't a car for everybody. But it's the only car out there in production which has managed to combine all-electric with useful range in something that doesn't look like something out of an Anime cartoon. It's, for lack of a better term, a real car that happens to be all electric - and it something that nobody else has managed to pull off and produce.

Its been previously stated that powering the Tesla S to max range is equivalent to burning 3 gallons of gas.Compared to the usual 10-12 gallon gas tank of a car, that's pretty much a win no matter how you get the electricity (as long its not frm baby farts; while smelly, they arent very large or practical for a pwoerplant)

Lets be honest here and say that a coal/gas/oil burning plant can be much more efficient than a gasoline engine. By the time the engines power reaches the wheels, something like 80% of the gasoline's energy is wasted, mostly in the form of heat, the rest from drive line losses (also heat from friction.)

A coal/oil power station can reach 33% efficiency while a combined cycle plant can reach 50-60%. And if they use district heating like Con Edison does in NYC, then you go even higher because the waste heat is

Within the next 10 years or so I am sure you will see many more solar powered homes.
That's what they said 10 years ago. Just sayin...

As I look through my window right now, I can see 16 homes.
6 of those have got solar panels on their roofs generating electricity (2 have also got solar water heating).
10 years ago none of them had any solar.

Man, if only there were some way for you to find data to support your proposition that "A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant." Maybe we could create some sort of globally-connected network of computers, with advanced tools to search through all the data.

Oh wait. We have those things. You are wrong, and it would have taken about eighteen seconds to find that out. Economies of scale, man - your local power plant generates energy more efficiently and deals with pollution more effectively than your tiny little internal combustion engine. Even an electric car driven off of oil-burning power plants is less polluting (although only by about 1/3) per mile driven than an internal combustion engine.

A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.

There are huge advantages in economies of scale when centralizing pollution controls. For example each gasoline powered currently car has to carry around a certain mass of equipment in order to comply with current pollution standards. Removing that mass from a moving vehicle and putting it in a fixed location gives you an instant efficiency gain as you no longer have to waste energy carting it around with you.

In addition, centralizing the power distribution of cars to current power stations allows you to flip over to a different primary source sometime in the future, without upsetting the consumption side. So while it may use fossil fuels now, that doesn't mean it still has to 10 years down the track. Think of it as refactoring the hardware to aid in future system changes.

A gasoline-burning car is probably less polluting than a coal-burning electrical plant.

Absolutely not.

Modern large-scale coal plants are both substantially more efficient and much cleaner. They also tend to be in better locations.

In terms of particulates, because coal plants operate at much higher temperatures (for a more complete burn) and can use much larger and more effective scrubbers, gasoline engines are much worse -- even with a catalytic converter installed. Ditto for sulfur and other chemical pollutants. And we can typically put those coal plants well away from other major pollut

Batteries don't work as well when they are cold. Surely this is common knowledge to everyone over 12 years old (and younger if they happen to have taken up any hobbies that use batteries like say RC cars).

It's why the "charge it a little to recondition the batteries" isn't completely nonsensical (well the terminology is wrong) since charging will warm up the batteries.

A lot of the journalists story makes sense, and Tesla support could very well have given him bad advice. That's significantly undermined by i

Why didn't Broder take an picture of the dashboard to show us that the car did indeed shutdown, as he sad it did.

why bother? tesla admits as much with their logs..

what musk should explain is why the range went down when parked overnight so much. if it's a battery heater eating the juice(apparently differently from roadster) then it's something that would be worth knowing..